Restraint of trade by agreement Employer and employee. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendants' appeal in respect of the judge's findings of breaches of non-compete and non-solicitation covenants in the sale of a business providing 'supported living' services for children leaving care and vulnerable adults. Further, it upheld the judge's conclusion that an award of damages on the Wrotham Park basis (see Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd[) was the just response in the present case.
*UBS AG v Revenue and Customs Commissioners; DB Group Services (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners
Income tax Earnings from employment. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners concerning schemes used by UBS AG and DB Group Services (UK) Ltd, which were designed to avoid the payment of income tax on bankers' bonuses. The court held that the tax exemption in of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, did not apply in the present case in respect of the schemes whereby shares were awarded to employees in place of bonuses. The court ruled that, on the true construction of s 423 and in the circumstances of the present case, income tax was payable on the value of the shares on the date of their acquisition.
Employment Remuneration. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal in respect of the judge's decision that the claimant had been underpaid commission in respect of a deal and that the defendant should have allocated two-thirds of the available commission to the United Kingdom office. In particular, the court considered whether the judge had been right to have interfered with the defendant's exercise of what it described as the broad discretion provided to it in the contractual documents.
Redundancy Employer's duty to consult appropriate trade union. The respondent employee had successfully issued proceedings in the United Kingdom seeking a protective award after she had been made redundant the day after the closure of the appellant United States of America's military base in the UK. The Supreme Court dismissed the USA's appeal, ruling, among other things, that amendments to the by the Collective Redundancies and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Amendment) Regulations 1995 (), which required employee representatives to be designated for consultation purposes in all situations covered by the Act, were not ultra vires. left it open to member states to apply or introduce even more favourable laws, regulations or administrative provisions than those it required.
European Union Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that the Decision on the BFA Group restructuring and arts 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which formed the basis for that decision, did not preclude the application, in proceedings relating to a collective redundancy that fell within the scope of that decision, of national legislation under which the compensation payable to an employee whose dismissal was held to be unfair was set at an amount higher than the legal minimum.
Conflict of laws Foreign proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that English court had jurisdiction pursuant to section5 of to determine a dispute arising out of the claimant's employment with an English company whose parent company was a Massachusetts company, in circumstances where the claimant's contract of employment contained an express choice of Massachusetts law and an exclusive jurisdiction agreement in favour of the courts of Massachusetts. The court allowed the claimant's appeal against an order dismissing his application for an anti-suit injunction on the basis that it was bound by the decision in Samengo-Turner v J & H Marsh & McLennan (Services) Ltd .
European Union Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of of Council Directive (EC) 98-59 (on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies). The request had been made in proceedings between Mr Balkaya and Kiesel Abbruch- und Recycling Technik GmbH concerning the lawfulness of a dismissal on economic grounds announced by the latter, upon the closure of an establishment, no notification of the projected collective redundancies having being given to the German Federal Employment Agency before that dismissal.
Confidential information Interlocutory injunction. The claimant company, Allfiled, brought proceedings alleging that the defendants, three of whom were former directors of Allfiled, had conspired to set up their own business and had caused employees to leave Allfiled. It sought interlocutory injunctive relief against the defendants pending trial or further order, to prevent them from using, disclosing or disseminating Allfiled's confidential information and intellectual property. The Chancery Division made an order accordingly.
Competition Merger. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) had found there to have been a relevant merger situation under s22(1) of the arising from the appellant's acquisition of cross-channel ferries from SeaFrance's liquidator and its employment of the majority of former SeaFrance employees, as a consequence of a statutory indemnity payment to the appellant for employing those redundant workers. The decision was upheld by the Competition Appeals Tribunal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal as the CMA's finding that upon such mass re-employment there had been in reality a transfer, or a transfer 'in effect' by SeaFrance, had been irrationally wrong and one that could not properly have been made.
Employment Fixed-term contracts. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal brought by the appellant trade union against a decision of the Court of Session, Inner House, that the employees in question who were on limited term contracts (LTCs) which had not been renewed had not been dismissed 'as redundant' for the purposes of the consultation requirement under s 188(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act (Consolidation) 1992. The Court decided that, contrary to what had been decided by the Inner House, the coming to an end of an LTC was 'for a reason not related to the individual concerned' for the purposes of the definition of redundancy in s 195(1) of the Act.